"What I'm concerned about are sneering critics who think that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused, ignorant."

Gosh, Bill. All you have to do to stop all that sneering is quit lying to people, stop misleading people, and go get yourself an education in biology. That will cure the dishonesty, confusion and ignorance on your part. Only THEN will the sneering will cease.

Until then you might consider getting a tougher outer layer as you can look forward to being sneered at the rest of your life.

ps: just between you and me ID's claims to science are in fact dishonest, confused and ignorant. That's why everyone outside your little cult sneers at you. They see right through yours and the Discovery Institute's little charade. "Id is about science and not God (wink wink)" come on Bill, anyone with half a brain can see through the ID con. And even your #2 lap poodle Joel admitted the ID movement in Kansas was dishonest they are really trying to sneak ID In the back door, remember? THAT is what is meant by dishonesty. Your "sneering" critics are right on the money, bro.

Dembski said - Quote "What I'm concerned about are sneering critics who think that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused, ignorant."

Ah yes the theological appeal to ideological conservative fundamentalism and the faux generosity of spirit and reason updated by the post modernist's appeal to unreality , that any idea that claims to be equal should be considered as an equal.

...aka ....don't ask me about the pesky details, I'm right and I know it and my sychophants agree with me, or so they are told.... because if they don't, they are shown the door quick smart.

That's how this new theology works, it's like old theology ....without the rack.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

"What I'm concerned about are sneering critics who think that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused, ignorant."

Just how much dishonesty is in that sentence?

He writes "sneering critics". OK, we sneer, but that's mainly after we showed his many errors.

IOW, this is just a sneer from Dimski against those who have carefully demonstrated the many fallacies, misdirections, and redefinitions of terms used by IDiots to foist off their confused, dishonest, and ignorant tripe as science.

The dishonest, confused, and ignorant Dembski cannot properly acknowledge the worthy critiques that he has received, hence he must mischaracterize them as only "sneering", when that is all that is possible after the dolt has ignored sound criticisms.

Then he writes that we "think" that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused and ignorant. Which implies that we don't know all of that, and that we haven't pointed out exactly how they are dishonest, confused, and ignorant. Okay, what's Dembski going to do, acknowledge the legitimacy of the the responses that show his primary claim to fame to be a charade and a scam? Of course not, but it is still well to itemize just how he is being dishonest in his mischaracterizations of the peer review that his work didn't deserve, but still received (to his mortification).

See, it's all just opinion, we just "think" that. And it sells to the ignorant, dishonest, and confused, which is exactly what Dembski desires. DaveTard and O'Leary are on board, as well as the one who rants using Bartlett's quotations as authoritative references (JAD for any neophytes). It's their collective lie that we simply "think" they are wrong, hence they cover their many mistakes and far larger collection of omissions and petty censorships with the sneer that we simply "think" what we have demonstrated.

And just how well has it been shown that even the best among the IDists exhibit dishonesty, confusion, or ignorance? Not all are guilty of all three, with Paul Nelson perhaps being the most honest (he said that evolutionary theory has much more explanatory power than ID at present--my only complaint is that this implies that ID has some explanatory power, but it's close enough for a proponent), though it seems that Dembski's remarks and actions are liberally infused with all of them.

I won't try even to example the extremely numerous cases where those traits have been shown by IDists, including those who are the supposed "experts". It's just that virtually all such demonstrations are ignored and waved away with a sneer by the egregious Dembski. Yes, as Heddle finally notices, as Judge Jones ruled, but more importantly, as competent critiques have generously shown, both on the web and off of it.

Dembski is his Name Homer: Everybody in the U.S.A. Hates their stupid UCD'er. He's Dembski and he's really, really lame! Dembski tried to wreck my song, His views on birth control are wrong. I hate his guts and Dembski is his name.Lenny, Carl and Homer: D-E-M-B-S-K-I! Homer: He's the man that I hate best, I'd like to see his house go up in flames.

Lenny, Carl, and Homer: D-E-M-B.. Homer: His name is Bill! Lenny, Carl and Homer: S-K-I.. Homer: That's a stupid name! He's worse than Frankenstein or Dr. No! David Byrne: You can't upset him even slightly, He just smiles and nods politely, Then goes home and worships nightly. His Blogo book shop is an emporium of woe!Lenny, Carl, and Homer: D-E-M-B.. Homer: Don't yell at Bill. Lenny, Carl and Homer: S-K-I.. Homer: His wife is (not?)dead! Everybody hates that stupid jerk. David Byrne: Springfield rocks with Homer's joyous loathing, Filling clubs with angry Valentinos. You don't have to move your feet, Just hate Dembski to the disco beat. David Byrne and Homer: He's your perky, peppy, nightmare Creationero! Homer and Ned: If you despise polite Right-handers, Then I doubt you'll like Bill Dembski, Or his creepy little offspring Gil and Dave! Gil (spoken): That's us! Dave (spoken): Hooray! Choir: FD-E-M-B.. Apu: His name is Bill, Choir: S-K-I.. Apu: He is so white bread! Church Choir: The smiling Bespectcled geek who walks with God! Lovejoy (spoken): Mass dismissed.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Yes, you were just dreaming. And you still are. When you wake up, you'll find that geocentrism is still taught in schools and doctors still practice bloodletting. Welcome to the Dark Ages.

You have to wonder...if these sheep were in charge...how many fewer illnesses, diseases or world problems would have be or gone unsolved?

If God designed or created every and everything was by design then would it not be an act to go against the will of God to cure an illness or changes the path of a virus...or move people out of harms way of a hurricane?

Funny how the pick and choose, how they interpret God's word and will. Are they not themselves committing blasphemy by speaking for God

--------------- Born right the first time.- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

You have to wonder...if these sheep were in charge...how many fewer illnesses, diseases or world problems would have be or gone unsolved??

Of course ...why bother with materialistic nature its the devils work. God willing, when 'Darwinism' is defeated no more investigation needs to be done they already know what the answer is...and anyway all that science does is produce more gaps..don't you get it?

Quote

If God designed or created every and everything was by design then would it not be an act to go against the will of God to cure an illness or changes the path of a virus...or move people out of harms way of a hurricane?

WHAT??? you heathen, help the unfortunate ill and the poor? THAT is just a test of our faith, god is on our side NOT THEIRS, are you saying Jesus was a communist?NO if he was alive today he would fence off the poor, send them more hurricanes and ban all medical research that proves man can create man (without a woman) just like me ...god.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

The Institute of Scientific Apologetics is a division of Southern Evangelical Seminary that offers the Certificate in Scientific Apologetics designed for those interested in increasing their knowledge and effectiveness in defending the faith scientifically. The certificate prepares pastors, teachers, missionaries, and lay persons for apologetic and evangelistic ministry and outreach around the world. Students already accepted into a degree program may add this as a Concentration in Scientific Apologetics. Upon completion of this program the student should have demonstrated knowledge in Philosophy, Apologetics, Theology and Science.

We believe in the special creation of the entire space-time universe and of every basic form of life in the six historic days of the Genesis creation record. We also believe in the historicity of the biblical record, including the special creation of Adam and Eve as the literal progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide flood, and the origin of nations and diverse languages at the tower of Babel.

The story of Babel was in Genesis 11, so English obviously originated earlier. Otherwise, how else would they have written the first 10 chapters?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Dembski will be in charge of a laser printer that spews out "Certificates of Scientific Apologetics" which, with a North Carolina State Certificate of Massage Therapy would enable the SES "graduate" to get a job as a masseuse.

I find it somewhat ironic that the great and powerful intellectual Dembski is reduced to sucking a sorry job in apologetics in North fucking Carolina. Seriously, I wonder why the moron doesn't just buy a double-wide and start his own university. Oh, yeah, I forgot. He's a moron.

What's totally hilarious is that he can't say it's anyone's fault but his own.

He's the one who didn't follow instructions at Baylor. He's the one who bailed out on Kitzmiller. He's the one who took the book money and ran. He's the one teaching vacuous subjects at vacuous 'schools'.

Nobody, literally nobody, gives a rat's left testicle about anything he says or does.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Srsly, here we have the self-proclaimed Isaac Newton of Information Theory, more like the Alfred E. Neuman What-Me-Worry professor of Jacking Off, feebly attempting and monumentally failing at projecting "intelligent design" creationism as science, reduced from the University of Chicago department of mathematics to a pre-fab building Bible certificate mill smack in the middle of Bum Fuck, America, chanting "teh flud can haz realz, teh flud can haz realz" amongst a faculty who verily defines the phrase "severe mental retardation" and we are led to believe that this is the Number Two Guy in the "intelligence design" creationism movement.

Hate to say it, but a meth lab would be a step UP from where Dr. Dr. "Oh, look at me I'm a goober!" Dimbulbski is today.

Srsly, here we have the self-proclaimed Isaac Newton of Information Theory, more like the Alfred E. Neuman What-Me-Worry professor of Jacking Off, feebly attempting and monumentally failing at projecting "intelligent design" creationism as science, reduced from the University of Chicago department of mathematics to a pre-fab building Bible certificate mill smack in the middle of Bum Fuck, America, chanting "teh flud can haz realz, teh flud can haz realz" amongst a faculty who verily defines the phrase "severe mental retardation" and we are led to believe that this is the Number Two Guy in the "intelligence design" creationism movement.

Hate to say it, but a meth lab would be a step UP from where Dr. Dr. "Oh, look at me I'm a goober!" Dimbulbski is today.

Wow. He's taken a step down from running Uncommonly Dense.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

I apologize for the the heat at the center of sun explained by the theory of nuclear fission so help me god.

I apologize for the theory of the big bang and its explanation of the origin of the universe 13.5 billion years before the writing of Genesis and the novel use of the literary trope of deus ex machina to explain the origin of mankind.

I apologize for the the heat at the center of sun explained by the theory of nuclear fission so help me god.

I apologize for the theory of the big bang and its explanation of the origin of the universe 13.5 billion years before the writing of Genesis and the novel use of the literary trope of deus ex machina to explain the origin of mankind.

I apologize for the exstinction of life at the end of Premian period.

I apologize for being in the same species as William B Dembski.

LET IT BE SO

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

(snip)Hate to say it, but a meth lab would be a step UP from where Dr. Dr. "Oh, look at me I'm a goober!" Dimbulbski is today.

Ha! Move over, Bryan Cranston.

Hey, the dude's gotta pay the bills somehow.

eta this is of course a challenge to Kattarina98's photoshop skillz.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I find it rather odd that Southern Evangelical Seminary is YEC to the core, but their new "Scientific Apologetics" certificate program has as faculty Fazale Rana, and Hugh Ross, along with Dembski. They are all "old earth" creationists.

So, is SES just too stupid to know who they hired, or is there a change of heart.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

I find it rather odd that Southern Evangelical Seminary is YEC to the core, but their new "Scientific Apologetics" certificate program has as faculty Fazale Rana, and Hugh Ross, along with Dembski. They are all "old earth" creationists.

So, is SES just too stupid to know who they hired, or is there a change of heart.

Naw, all of these fuckers have a fistful of business cards. But it's got to be embarrassing to get a royalty check for a dollar fifty.

There’s a mentality I see emerging in conservative Christian circles that one can never be quite conservative enough. This has really got me thinking about fundamentalism and the bane it is. It’s one thing to hold views passionately. It’s another to hold one particular view so dogmatically that all others may not even be discussed, or their logical consequences considered. This worries me about the future of evangelicalism....

Many Christian institutions have an inferiority complex in which they’re trying to ape the secular academy and gain its approval. Those that resist this mentality often adopt a fundamentalist mentality in which they think they’ve got everything nailed down. That may work in the Christian ghetto, but it has no traction in the wider culture.

Note that for WaD this is ANOTHER step DOWN in his career. He's not moving up to the Univ. of Chicago, he's moving DOWN from a big seminary with actual buildings to a certificate printing company in the middle of an unlandscaped field.

I find it rather odd that Southern Evangelical Seminary is YEC to the core, but their new "Scientific Apologetics" certificate program has as faculty Fazale Rana, and Hugh Ross, along with Dembski. They are all "old earth" creationists.

So, is SES just too stupid to know who they hired, or is there a change of heart.

I don't think that they are faculty. I think that they are just using these guys for nifty quotes.

ETA - Just checked and found that Fazale is giving a summer course on Chemistry & Molecular Biology during the summer.

Shame about : "The biggest drawbacks are that its famous founder, Norman Geisler, no longer teaches there and that the school has only TRACS accreditation, lacking accreditation from the more-recognized SACS or ATS."

What is this "The Best Schools" thing? It's weird.

They even mistake a UK diploma mill based in Oxford for Oxford University!*

Dembski is a fascinating character to me, in a train wreck sort of way. Here's a guy who paid his dues in Chicago to earn a PhD in math and another one in philosophy, and those of use who have traveled this road know that you have to do certain things to reach the end, so congrats to Dr. Dr. for that work.

And then he threw it all away which is the fascinating, on-going train wreck. Why? He could have picked up a tenure track job in math or philosophy or both at a small or large university and settled into a nice, long, steady, anonymous career and that would have been that.

But, no. He appears to have bought into a cult that fed his very large ego and he went downhill from there. He had a brief chance at normalcy when offered the director's position at Baylor, but he managed to fuck that up, too, but not from academic ineptitude, rather from his penchant of taking Jackassedness to an art form. And that seems to be his m.o. to this day.

Perhaps one of our trained psychologists can weigh in on the self-destructive personality type exhibited by Dembski, at least, that's my personal, untrained observation.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I apologize for the the heat at the center of sun explained by the theory of nuclear fission so help me god.

I apologize for the theory of the big bang and its explanation of the origin of the universe 13.5 billion years before the writing of Genesis and the novel use of the literary trope of deus ex machina to explain the origin of mankind.

Dembski is a fascinating character to me, in a train wreck sort of way. Here's a guy who paid his dues in Chicago to earn a PhD in math and another one in philosophy, and those of use who have traveled this road know that you have to do certain things to reach the end, so congrats to Dr. Dr. for that work.

And then he threw it all away which is the fascinating, on-going train wreck. Why? He could have picked up a tenure track job in math or philosophy or both at a small or large university and settled into a nice, long, steady, anonymous career and that would have been that.

But, no. He appears to have bought into a cult that fed his very large ego and he went downhill from there. He had a brief chance at normalcy when offered the director's position at Baylor, but he managed to fuck that up, too, but not from academic ineptitude, rather from his penchant of taking Jackassedness to an art form. And that seems to be his m.o. to this day.

Perhaps one of our trained psychologists can weigh in on the self-destructive personality type exhibited by Dembski, at least, that's my personal, untrained observation.

Well, as I understand it, his thesis for his philosophy PhD was "The Design Inference".

Which is clever, but fallacious.

So he had the choice of sticking with a fallacious argument and not getting very far, or following the light and using his considerable analytical skill.

But it's hard to give up a good argument, especially if you got it published and lots of people liked it.

And very tempting to keep trying to rescue it, which, as I see it, he continues to try to do, and to tell yourself the flaws are fixable.

I think it's quite sad. I'm actually enjoying No Free Lunch. It's a good effort. It just doesn't work.

Dembski is a fascinating character to me, in a train wreck sort of way. Here's a guy who paid his dues in Chicago to earn a PhD in math and another one in philosophy, and those of use who have traveled this road know that you have to do certain things to reach the end, so congrats to Dr. Dr. for that work.

And then he threw it all away which is the fascinating, on-going train wreck. Why? He could have picked up a tenure track job in math or philosophy or both at a small or large university and settled into a nice, long, steady, anonymous career and that would have been that.

But, no. He appears to have bought into a cult that fed his very large ego and he went downhill from there. He had a brief chance at normalcy when offered the director's position at Baylor, but he managed to fuck that up, too, but not from academic ineptitude, rather from his penchant of taking Jackassedness to an art form. And that seems to be his m.o. to this day.

Perhaps one of our trained psychologists can weigh in on the self-destructive personality type exhibited by Dembski, at least, that's my personal, untrained observation.

Well, as I understand it, his thesis for his philosophy PhD was "The Design Inference".

Which is clever, but fallacious.

So he had the choice of sticking with a fallacious argument and not getting very far, or following the light and using his considerable analytical skill.

But it's hard to give up a good argument, especially if you got it published and lots of people liked it.

And very tempting to keep trying to rescue it, which, as I see it, he continues to try to do, and to tell yourself the flaws are fixable.

I think it's quite sad. I'm actually enjoying No Free Lunch. It's a good effort. It just doesn't work.

If Dembski does have "considerable analytical skills" he would know that No Free Lunch was stillborn. This means he either doesn't have considerable analytical skills or he's egregiously dishonest. I don't know how NFL could be considered a "good effort." Not only did it fail, it failed on a very superficial level.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements. You have simply discredited him and sworn at him. While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position. You are actually demonstrating exactly what he says neo-Atheists do in his book The End of Christianity when he says:

“Instead of presenting scientific evidence that shows atheism to be true (or probable), the neo-atheists moralize about how much better the world would be if only atheism were true. Far from demonstrating that God does not exist, the neo-atheists merely demonstrate how earnestly they desire that God not exist.”

Your criticism towards Dembski would be much more founded if you actually had an argument against him or his belief.

While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements. You have simply discredited him and sworn at him. While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position. You are actually demonstrating exactly what he says neo-Atheists do in his book The End of Christianity when he says:

“Instead of presenting scientific evidence that shows atheism to be true (or probable), the neo-atheists moralize about how much better the world would be if only atheism were true. Far from demonstrating that God does not exist, the neo-atheists merely demonstrate how earnestly they desire that God not exist.”

Your criticism towards Dembski would be much more founded if you actually had an argument against him or his belief.

You'd really have to either be eight or have your head permanently in the sand to think nobody has presented arguments against Dembski or supporting atheism.

While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements. You have simply discredited him and sworn at him. While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position. You are actually demonstrating exactly what he says neo-Atheists do in his book The End of Christianity when he says:

“Instead of presenting scientific evidence that shows atheism to be true (or probable), the neo-atheists moralize about how much better the world would be if only atheism were true. Far from demonstrating that God does not exist, the neo-atheists merely demonstrate how earnestly they desire that God not exist.”

Your criticism towards Dembski would be much more founded if you actually had an argument against him or his belief.

And what has Dembski ever done except to redefine design explicitly in order to include life within that definition? It was an entirely illegitimate attempt to get around the fact that he has no evidence that life was designed, hence the resort to merely defining it as designed.

All of the rest of his nonsense is just so much noise to try to cover up that dishonest word-gaming.

While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements. You have simply discredited him and sworn at him. While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position. You are actually demonstrating exactly what he says neo-Atheists do in his book The End of Christianity when he says:

“Instead of presenting scientific evidence that shows atheism to be true (or probable), the neo-atheists moralize about how much better the world would be if only atheism were true. Far from demonstrating that God does not exist, the neo-atheists merely demonstrate how earnestly they desire that God not exist.”

Your criticism towards Dembski would be much more founded if you actually had an argument against him or his belief.

Here's your problem "his belief"

No one argues against his beliefs. No one cares. The problem is that he is lying and attempting to promote his beliefs as science and math. Which is fundamentally and in every way wrong.

Yeah, sounds like it's extra-credit time again. Same mindless defense of Dr.^2 without actually bothering to look at how many times his tripe has been shown to be meaningless bafflegab, intended only to sell books to the rubes.

How predictable.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

This text does not meet our specification. It is of exactly the correct length, note the large ellipsis in the middle, but it does not contain the text of the KJV. It is complex, because of its length bit it is not specified, hence there is zero CSI present in this text.

Now apply a regular process to this text. ROT13 is a regular process, a MOD 26 alphabetic shift of +13: a <-> n, b <-> o etc. What do we get when we apply this regular process to the text above? We get this:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

That changed text meets the specification, and is the same length. Hence it is complex, specified and it is information. The transformed text contains CSI -- Complex Specified Information. A regular process has gone from zero CSI initially to a large quantity of CSI after its application. This invalidates Dr. Dembski's claim that regular processes cannot generate CSI.

While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements.

I've made arguments against his statements. In particular, I've made arguments against (some of) his statements regarding his so-called 'Explanatory Filter'.Dembski has stated that the Filter is simply a formalized, more-rigorous version of the design-detection methodology everyone uses. But the Filter is strictly an eliminative process -- you rule out Explanation A, then rule out Explanation B, and keep on ruling out explanations, and if you run out of explanations to rule out, you conclude 'Design' is the explanation -- and we don't use eliminative processes to recognize design. If we used eliminative processes to recognize who painted a particular painting, that process of recognition would look something like this: "Okay, it's not a Magritte… it's not a Rembrandt… it's not a Picasso… it's not a Van Gogh… (next several hundred, if not thousand, "it's not So-and-so" eliminations omitted 'cause they'd be horribly boring to read) …aha! Got it—that painting is a Rockwell!" But that doesn't happen; nobody recognizes a Rockwell because it's not like [insert list of painters it isn't like]. Rather, we recognize a Rockwell because it is like a Rockwell. You don't recognize Rockwell-style brushstrokes because they aren't the sort of brushstrokes used by [insert list of other painters]; rather, you recognize Rockwell-style brushstrokes because you know the characteristics of Rockwell's brushstrokes, and you can recognize those characteristics when you see them.More generally, we don't recognize any member of Category X on the grounds that it's not similar to things which are not members of Category X; rather we recognize a member of Category X on the grounds that it is similar to known members of category X.Contrary to Dembski's Filter, which is built on the presupposition that we recognize Design on the basis that Design is not like non-Design, how we actually recognize Design is on the basis that Design is like known examples of Design.As well, I've argued that Dembski's Filter cannot do the job Dembski claims it can unless it's being used by an omniscient entity. The Filter is all about elimination of non-Design explanation, right? Fine—but how can you eliminate a non-Design explanation you don't know about? Answer: You can't eliminate a non-Design explanation you don't know about. Therefore, Dembski's Filter necessarily yields a false positive result of "yep, it's Designed" whenever any investigator uses that Filter on a subject that has a non-Design explanation of which that investigator is ignorant.So... Dembski's Filter is not a more-rigorous version of intellectual processes which are in common use, even tho he says it is. Any time the Filter yields a result of 'yes, it's Designed', there is no way to distinguish between (a) the Filter having correctly identified Design in a Designed whatzit, or (b) the investigator being unaware of the non-Design explanation for a non-Designed whatzit.

Quote

You have simply discredited him...

False. The person who has discredited Dembski is Dembski himself. All his critics have done is point out that he is discredited.

Quote

While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position.

Asked and answered. Feel free to show me what's wrong with my criticism of Dembski's Filter.

Dembski himself, or as Dave Scott (Esq.) would say "his own self" wrote that the Explanatory Filter doesn't work, he can't make it work, he can't figure it out and he's given up on it.

The only thing the fucker Dembski does consistently is LIE!

So, little Twerp Pastor-to-Be, if that's what you are, you're getting a great education by one of the most despicable, roundly derided, self-made loser (Univ. of Chicago to Baylor to Big Seminary to Little Seminary to unaccredited bum-fuck diploma mill) pathological lying fuckwit sociopaths on the planet! Congratulations!

Oh, btw, I think you tallied your 10 responses so you'll get at least a "C" in Dembski's class on Totally Fucking Useless Shit.

So, let us not forget that Dembski's bullshit efforts at creationist mathematics have also been fully discredited by real mathematicians. Or, if you prefer, competent professional mathematicians have debunked Dembski's bullshit. Examples;

It's worth noting that our host, Wesley Elsberry, is co-author (with John Wilkins) of an essay called The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance, which basically eviscerates Dembski's Explanatory Filter in a most rigorous manner. And since our new friend is concerned about the putative disrespect Dembski has received from the community of real scientists, perhaps he or she might want to browse the Invidious Comparisons forum on this board, which documents various examples of just this sort of impolite behavior on the part of ID=pushers -- including Dembski himself. By the way, do you know if Dembski has created any more Flash animations lately?

This text does not meet our specification. It is of exactly the correct length, note the large ellipsis in the middle, but it does not contain the text of the KJV. It is complex, because of its length bit it is not specified, hence there is zero CSI present in this text.

Now apply a regular process to this text. ROT13 is a regular process, a MOD 26 alphabetic shift of +13: a <-> n, b <-> o etc. What do we get when we apply this regular process to the text above? We get this:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

That changed text meets the specification, and is the same length. Hence it is complex, specified and it is information. The transformed text contains CSI -- Complex Specified Information. A regular process has gone from zero CSI initially to a large quantity of CSI after its application. This invalidates Dr. Dembski's claim that regular processes cannot generate CSI.

rossum

BTW, the Hebrew version of ROT13, Atbash, is used in the Bible itself.

Hey joe g (or any other IDiot), do you still want to argue that ID isn't a religious agenda? Do you still want to argue that your hero and often appealed to ID expert and authority dembski doesn't believe and assert that the designer is the christian god? Do you agree with dembski that the designer is the christian god? Do you still want to argue that ID has no dispute with common descent? What all do you think of dembski's comments?

And hey joe, is your muslim god allah the same as the christian god yhwh?

Edited by The whole truth on May 09 2012,15:15

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Wow, it did me good to stop by after a long absence and see this old thread near the top! Makes me pine for those good 'ole days of Friday meltdowns and bodacious wagers.

--------------Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Many definitions of miracles exist, but the one central to this discussion treats them as events beyond the ordinary powers of nature. Men dead and buried for three days don't rise again simply through the ordinary forces of nature (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein notwithstanding). Likewise, it is an open question whether purely natural forces are able to produce the information-rich structures that we find in living things. To say that Darwin or his naturalistic successors have solved this problem is delusional.

{emphasis added}

Hmm. However, believing that a dead guy became alive just because a 2000 year old legend based on scant hearsay evidence provided by someone with an agenda says so is not delusional?

Skeptical, I am.

Whose delusion is better supported by the scientific method?

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

I am going through books and papers today, and ran across my presentation materials for the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. They are a set of overhead transparencies.

But it was essentially Dembski's first primer on genetic algorithms. I intend to put it into a digital-friendly format and make it available.

Let us make this easy. You falsely claim that the multiple quotes I gave from Mike Behe misrepresent his beliefs. These are; there is some attribute of life that demands a supernatural being, and that he repeatedly has identified this "intelligent designer" as the God he worships.

Let that obvious fact go.

What, or who do you believe created the Universe, and life?

I have read your book, "Darwin Day in America." I have it next to the keyboard as I write. You clearly reject the notion that there is any other being other than the biblical God that could be the "Intelligent Designer." But here is your chance to publicly deny that you do exclusively attribute the creation of the universe, and humans to your God. Do you?

In your book, you attribute every ill imaginable to the evil materialism of science. You use more careful word selection than Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind but your meaning is totally clear. Do you deny here in public that the Christian beliefs you hold are the same ones you want to replace the "scientific materialism" you reject?

And while we are at it; How old is the Earth? Was there a Global Flood as described in Genesis? Was Eve created from a rib from Adam?

He is long gone.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."